Gunman in shooting spree at Florida high school. Many injuries. ...What is wrong in the USA? - Page 38 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#14894296
Suntzu wrote:Cruz was using 10 round magazines in the Parkland shooting.

Correct

The early reports that Cruz used high-capacity magazines turned out to be false.

Critics of high-capacity magazines have pointed to the shooting as an example of how they enable killing and ought to be banned, but the Parkland shooter used only smaller magazines.

Senator Marco Rubio (R., Fla.) hinted at a CNN town hall last week that the weapon may have malfunctioned, saying “three or four people may be alive today” because of something that happened during the shooting. Rubio has reconsidered his stance on whether high-capacity magazines should remain legal after the shooting, even though they are not what the young gunman used.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/ ... magazines/
Last edited by Hindsite on 07 Mar 2018 12:03, edited 1 time in total.
#14894303
So what if in this case he was using 10 round magazines? A few months ago a guy who killed 59 people and injured hundreds was using magazines of 50 to 100 rounds. The argument for a limit on magazine size is still valid.

Also, this highlights the need for semi-automatic, rapid-firing weapons to be out of the hands of civilians who abuse them.

None of this is against the Second amendment, either. :knife:
#14894305
Godstud wrote:So what if in this case he was using 10 round magazines? A few months ago a guy who killed 59 people and injured hundreds was using magazines of 50 to 100 rounds. The argument for a limit on magazine size is still valid.

Also, this highlights the need for semi-automatic, rapid-firing weapons to be out of the hands of civilians who abuse them.

None of this is against the Second amendment, either. :knife:

Here is what an earlier report had said that turned out to be wrong about the magazine size:

Nikolas Cruz left at least 180 rounds of ammunition — inside magazines that bore Nazi swastika symbols — at the scene of the Parkland school shooting.

Along with his AR-15 semi-automatic rifle, Cruz abandoned at least six magazines that each contained 30 bullets at the scene of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, according to two sources who spoke on condition of anonymity.


http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/browa ... story.html
Last edited by Hindsite on 07 Mar 2018 12:25, edited 1 time in total.
#14894308
All you do is highlight why I am correct in my assessment. Was that your goal?

"According to two sources that cannot be confirmed due to anonymity" ... right. :lol: So in other words... no reliable source.
#14894311
Godstud wrote:All you do is highlight why I am correct in my assessment. Was that your goal?

"According to two sources that cannot be confirmed due to anonymity" ... right. :lol: So in other words... no reliable source.

But the left wing news source reported it anyway, because they are for banning semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines. That is the real point.
#14894313
What is wrong with banning semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines? Are you pro-school shootings, or something?

The Second Amendment never stated what KIND of weapons you could have. They never could have foreseen the weapons that we have now.
#14894320
I don't mind typing it a third time. Perhaps it will sink in with some folks here (I won't hold my breath)

Adam Lanza killed his mother with her own weapons then took them to school and shot 26 people. Had the 2nd Amendment allowed her to have a bazooka, it is quite likely that Adam would have taken that to the school as well.

This is the point of limiting mag sizes. As we all know--and even the most liberal would agree--99.9% of gun owners are law abiding citizens whose weaponry will never be fired in anger if history is any indication and it usually is. That means that if there was a law passed tomorrow that you could only purchase a clip/mag of 10 rounds or 5 rounds or whatever....they wouldn't call someone in Botswana to have it furtively shipped in a plain brown wrapper to their anonymous PO box three states over. They simply would comply with the law. It is what grown up responsible people do.

So that means the following; if such a law were passed, Adam's mother would have these reduced capacity clips. Would it have saved lives? Maybe. Maybe not. But the one irrefutable fact is that while you're loading your weapon; you're not firing. The argument that it takes "2 seconds" is false because the entire process of having to stop, breaking off your attack, reloading, and then reacquiring your target is more like 8-10 seconds; More if there is a someone shooting back at you and you're having to shelter. The bottom line is less bullets will be fired than if there were higher capacity mags/clips. It's a simple fact.

Again, there is no argument outside of convenience, to have a high capacity magazine/clip. Such accouterments are not protected by the 2nd Amendment so there is no "cover" from it.
#14894325
In the run up to the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, types of arms was discussed. The type of arms covered was the type of arms carried by an ordinary soldier, at the time a musket or rifle, today an M4 with 30 round magazines. Canons were brought up and dismissed as being crew served weapons not available to the ordinary soldier.
#14894326
I personally don't find the 'well-regulated militia' business a bad notion, and it may even be nice if the US followed it. Countries like Vietnam and China train virtually all their citizens--who attend college--(male and female) in military arms. A girl I use to run with is Vietnamese, about 4'10, was the sort who would cry out in anguish at the mere sight of blood; and is also trained on the use of automatic weapons fire, among various other military tactics.

There are many sound civil arguments for why a country like the US would be much better served by a citizen army, rather than a professional military caste. A supposedly democratic country might not be so quick to wage war on everyone and anyone, if military service was a civic responsibility--owing to numerous factors. Of course, such a setup is indeed incompatible with the war mongering aims and ends of US foreign policy today.

I thought of joining the military numerous times. As a naive high school graduate right before the Iraq War, I spent some time in a Marines recruiting office. I suppose I was somewhat of the mind that signing up would show that I was tough. And besides, some of my high school wrestling buddies were doing it.

Despite my personal opposition to contemporary American foreign policy, something inside me caused a repeated revisiting of the notion of joining the military through the years. One thing I have felt I could genuinely do well with is the dynamic soldiering skills which I would likely attain. Logic did prevail and prevented me from going far down that rabbit hole (provided the state of things with the wars), but I did contact recruiters multiple times through the years, based on these sorts of whims. I still haven't surpassed the maximum age for joining the National Guard, and there is even a small irrational flame in me now. As one counter argument: my brother has told me that while he enjoyed his time in the Army, he is glad he is done so that he need not risk catching a felony case if he decides to tell his boss to go fuck himself.

Military service has a lot of potential benefits, but the professional soldier caste the US now maintains is double-plus ungood, in my estimation. This makes me a little bit envious of my Vietnamese, Chinese, Swiss, etc. (though not South Koreans--their conscription system is shit) counterparts.

So, I think the founders were on to something with that well regulated militia business; it is merely too bad that their words have been so distorted, in the service of an excessively perverse agenda, which--it seems to me--largely trickles down from the profit-related interests of the arms-producing industry. It is somewhat unsurprising the founders' words have been so done on; just look at the sorts of distortions and manipulations which have long been continuously done on the purported words of Jesus Christ.
Last edited by Crantag on 07 Mar 2018 14:18, edited 3 times in total.
#14894338
Hindsite wrote:No the second amendment is not obsolete because it is still being used to stop you gun control freaks.
I'd rather be a gun control freak than a supporter of murderous child-killing. Are you sure you are on the right side of this argument, or do you condone the murder of school children, and does your Bible also support that?
#14894341
Godstud wrote:I'd rather be a gun control freak than a supporter of murderous child-killing. Are you sure you are on the right side of this argument, or do you condone the murder of school children, and does your Bible also support that?

I don't recall. I might have to look that up sometime.
  • 1
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 42
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]